THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS CONTROVERSY

New Zealand Tablet, 10 April 1913, Page 23

THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS CONTROVERSY

A CHALLENGE. The following letter from his Lordship Bishop Cleary appeared in the New Zealand Herald of April 1. In the second last paragraph his Lordship replies to a specific misstatement which had been made with regard to the attitude of the British Catholic Bishops: 'Sir, —The League dares not face the facts. How and whence arises cue alleged moral right and duty of the Government to teach religion—or (in legal phrase) to impart " religious instruction and "general religious teacning" ? i\o proof. If the Government has the moral right to teach the Bible-in-schools view of religion to-day, has it not equally the right to teach the Mormon or Unitarian or (as in France) the Agnostic or Atheistic view of religion to-morrow ? In o reply. What moral right has the Government to compel conscientious objectors to pay for a form of State "religious instruction" opposed to convictions held, not on mere grounds of political expediency or social convenience, but of specific religious faith? No reply. . What moral right has the Government to bribe by pay and pension, or to coerce by their withdrawal, the large body of unwilling New Zealand teachers to impart "religious instruction" unacceptable to their consciences? No reply. Are not the conscientious scruples of teachers as much entitled to conscience clause "protection" as the conscientious scruples of parents and pupils? No reply. If teachers were entitled to a Bible-in-schools conscience clause in 1904, why not in 1913? No explanation. What moral right has the Government to deny to teachers rights of conscience which it grants to convicted pickpockets, burglars, and violators of little children? No reply.. 'Bribe objecting teachers; muzzle them (as in New South Wales) against political action; make protests to officials dangerous, or at least useless; visit disobedience with dismissal. Then, if teachers do not so protest, praise the Lord! This was the argument of the "pious" Southern slave-holder— in hand—for slavery; it is the argument of the "pious" burglar, with revolver at your head. When did silence, tolerance, or even consent of purchased or coerced teachers make moral turpitude a virtue? No reply. If such objectors believe not the League religion, it is legalised hypocrisy in the service of the Lord of Truth. This is not denied. If they come to believe it, then it is (in quoted standard dictionary phrase) legalised proselytism. This is undeniable. Over and over again I have cited positive evidence of Australian teachers' objections—from Bishop Gallagher and others having intimate official knowledge, from an authoritative statement m the Queensland Parliament, and from the admission of so ardent a leaguer as Dr. Youngman. An ounce of such positive testimony is worth more than a ton of illogical negative inference. On specific religious grounds, no amount of subsidy would win Catholic acceptance of majority rule of conscience, of the proposed persecution of teachers, or of the League's Irish proselytising conscience clause. This legalised false pretence is not known in the English-Scottish system. I have before me pronouncements, of the British Catholic Bishops on religion in the schools, and I hereby offer a gold medal to any League official who will show that they accept the League proposals against which I protest. The dismissal of Miss Janet Marshall, M.A., from a Motherwell public school on April 30,' 1912, simply because she was a Catholic, rather upsets the illusion that religion and education are quite peaceably united in Scotland. ' I have charged the League with persistently shirking the difficulties of their scheme. This is easily done in newspaper correspondence, where question and answer, objection and reply, do not appear together. Let us have two question nights" in the Town Hall, two meetings of the general public, such as mine have all been. Let the League put forward its picked man or men. I will pay half the expenses of hire and adver-

tising, and will put questions and question answers. I will follow with a "question night," and, as is my invariable practice, will give prompt, clear, and straightforward replies to every question bearing upon the issues. Then the public will see who is evading difficulties. • * Henry W. Cleary, 'Bishop of Auckland. 'March 27.' THE QUESTION OF A REFERENDUM. The following letter also appeared in the Herald: ' Sir,The following is the substance of some sectarian issues on which a section of four out of nearly fifty denominations want to secure a referendum majority:—(l) Is it the duty of the Government to teach, as a class-subject, the Bible-in-schools view of religion? Comment: Would a majority vote' make this good doctrine or a square deal? Why not also teach, as a class-subject, the Congregationalist, Baptist, Jewish, Unitarian, Anglican, Secularist, and other views of religion? (2) Shall conscientious objectors be forced to contribute to the cost of the State-teaching of the Bible-in-schools view of religion? Comment: Would a majority vote make it a square deal or morally right to pick the pockets of nearly fifty denominations to provide religious manuals and "religious instruction" for the exclusive benefit of a very divided section of four denominations? Would the Ven. Archdeacon Walsh. favor the taxation of Protestants in Ireland for the,'State-teaching of the majority view of religion there ? And if not, why not ? (3) Shall objecting teachers be forced, under pain of loss of salary and pension, to impart the Bible-in-schools view of religion, which their consciences reject? Comment: Would a majority vote justify such tyranny or make hypocrisy a virtue ? How would the Ven Archdeacon enjoy being coerced by a majority of his congregation to teach what he holds to be erroneous and mischievous views of religion, on pain of forfeiture of his means of -living? Ought not Bible-in-schools clergy and parents to be ashamed thus to force their neglected duty on unwilling public servants ? The Anglican General Synod of 1898 and the Bible-in-Schools Party in 1904 offered a conscience clause to teachers. Why not now ? (4) Shall the following glaring falsehood be placed upon the Statutebook : Without exception, all parents of State-school children who fail to protest in writing against the Bible-m-schools religion, thereby demand or approve that religion for their children? According to the League's "new theology," child-murder, head-hunt-ing, polygamy, unlimited divorce, and the horrors of the Coliseum are all stamped with the Divine approval, since they all had the approval of big majorities at various times and places; also, a majority in Jerusalem did a virtuous thing in preferring the thief Barabbas to Christ. Martin J. O'Doherty. ' St. Patrick's, Auckland, 'March 28.' A PRESBYTERIAN UTTERANCE AND FATHER HUNT'S REPLY. The following letter from the Very Rev. Father Hunt in reply to the utterances of the Rev. Mr. Blue, a Presbyterian minister, appeared in the Alexandra Herald of April 2:—♦ ' Sir, — the Rev. Mr. Blue desires to refute the Catholic objections to the so-called Bible-in-Schools League, the first thing logic would compel him to do is to state them properly. This he has not done, nor even attempted to do. Hence, if he refutes anyone it is himself, like the redoubtable Sir Hudibras whose gun ' "Aimed at pigeon, duck or plover Recoiled and kicked its owner over." 'He says that "Catholics are against State education in every form." But there are State systems established in England, Germany, Holland, and other countries. In these countries the rights of all are

effectually safeguarded hence the Catholics are satisfied to allow the State to supervise the secular branches of education, which is all the State claims here. Therefore, it is untrue to say that Catholics are opposed to State education in every form. ' We find fault with the secular system here not in what it does but in what it denies, to use the expression of Mr. Blue. - 'Again Mr. Blue says "But. when we want to introduce religious teaching they (the Catholics) say, ' No, you must not.' " To say that we Catholics, who have been fighting all the time against tremendous odds in order that religion may be taught in the schools, are against it sounds rather funny. Because we object to the monstrous injustice of trie League's proposals therefore we object to religion in schools says the Rev. Mr. Blue. Has he never heard of the Commandment '' Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." 'We desire nothing more than introduction of religion into schools, but in such a manner as to provide reasonable and effectual safeguards for the rights of all. It is easy to see that the League's proposals would interfere grossly with the God-given rights of parents, children, and teachers. Mr. Blue says the question is "Whether minorities have a right to rule on any question!" This is Mr. Blue's question not ours. If we may. be permitted to ask a question, we might ask Mr. Blue if minorities have any rights at all. If parents have not the right to bring up their children in the ancient and cherished faith of their forefathers, then they have no rights worth talking about. It was on Mr. Blue's principle of ignoring individual and minority rights that Christ Himself was crucified. His principles pushed to their logical conclusions would justify the iniquitous sentence of Pilate passed at the demand of the whole multitude. We Catholics would sooner lose our lives than allow our children to be robbed of their Faith. There can be no "give and take" here, no more than there is in the words of Christ, "Go ye therefore, teach all Nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Is there any "give and take" in these words of Christ? The sooner that our rights are fully and effectually recognised the better for the peace and security of the whole country. Let all true patriots see to this. The secular system is evil, but the League's system would make things worse; therefore, of the two evils we choose the less. 'Mr. Hugh McKenzie's letter in the Otago Daily Times, March 18, amply proves the friction and mischief caused by the system in New South Wales, and at the same time makes it clear what little credit is to be attached to the statements of the League's leaders. ' It is a gross calumny to say that the Catholic Church is opposed to the Bible or to its legitimate use. It is due to the learning and labor of thousands of Catholics religious during the period that the Rev. Mr. Blue stigmatises as "mediaeval darkness" that the world has a Bible at all. Now, as in past ages, she has an immense army of scholars and scientists who are doing imperishable work in' its defence against the motley mobs of her unscrupulous enemies. If the Church had not kept the lamps of religion and learning burning during the so-called "dark ages" the whole of Christendom would have been over-whelmed by hordes of barbarians, and the last state of the world would have been worse than the first. —I am, etc., G. M. Hunt, ' Cromwell.'